TEK BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal the appellant has taken exception to his conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code ("ipc" in short) as also the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs. 5000/- awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 151/1998.

(2.) RELEVANT facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant-accused and two others, out of whom one Bharat Bhushan died during the trial and the other one Jagdish Kumar @ Jeeta was acquitted, are that PW-1 Krishan Lal used to reside at House No. 72, Indira Park, Delhi along with his wife (PW-3 Radha) and daughter Seema. He was doing the job of welding from his shop in Chander Nagar. The acquitted accused Jagdish Kumar @ Jeeta was also having a shop of building material near the shop of PW-1. PW-1 used to keep sarias etc. in the gali in front of the shop of Jagdish Kumar which used to cause inconvenience to his customers and the same was objected to by him and because of that there used to be frequent quarrels between the two. As per the further prosecution case on 7th november, 87 the acquitted accused Jagdish Kumar @ Jeeta decided to get rid of kishan Lal by getting him killed and for that purpose he hired appellant Tek bahadur and paid him Rs. 7000/- as a reward for executing the job. That conspiracy was allegedly hatched at the shop of Jagdish Kumar on 7/11/87 and krishan Lal has claimed that he had heard both these accused hatching that conspiracy. The appellant-accused in turn associated the deceased accused Bharat bhushan for the accomplishment of the object of the said conspiracy. On the same day i. e. 7th November, 1987, in the evening at about 7. 30 p. m. appellant-accused tek Bahadur and the deceased accused Bharat Bhushan came to the house of PW-1 kishan Lal who at that time was present there alongwith his wife and daughter. The two accused knocked at his door and his wife Radha opened the door. Krishan lal also came to the door. As soon as the door was opened they saw two boys, aged about 22-23 years and one of whom boy was a pahari (accused Tek Bahadur ). The pahari looking boy was having a plastic container in his hand and he threw the liquid which was there in that container on Krishan Lal, his wife and their daughter Seema who was also around that place at that time. That liquid was later on found to be Sulphuric acid. Thereafter both the accused ran away. Somebody from the neighborhood informed the police and then PW-12 Inspector rajbir Sharma, PW-6 Constable Suresh Chand and PW-9 Constable Dayanand reached there after sometime but before that all the three injured persons had been removed to JPN hospital. PW-12 then went to JPN Hospital where the three injured had been medically examined and he collected their MLCs (Ex. PW-12/b, ex. PW-10/aandb) which showed acid injuries on the face of all the three. Since the injured were found to be unfit for making any statement PW-12 on the basis of his own assessment of the incident got FIR (Ex. PW-8/a) registered under sections 452/307/324 IPC. On 9. 12. 87 Krishan Lal gave a statement to the investigating officer (PW-12) in which he expressed suspicion that Jeeta @ jagdish (acquitted accused) could be the person behind this incident. Jeeta had a shop of building material by the side of his shop of welding works and many a times altercation had taken place between him and Jeeta whenever iron rods etc. were kept in front of his shop. Jeeta had also extended threats to him many a times that he would teach him a good lesson.

(3.) EVEN though PW-1 Krishan Lal had expressed his suspicion against the acquitted accused Jagdish @ Jeeta on 9. 11. 87 the police did not take any action against him. It appears that on 14. 7. 88 PW-1 Krishan Lal saw appellant-accused tek Bahadur sitting in the shop of Jagdish Kumar @ Jeeta and he identified him to be that pahari boy who had thrown acid on him on 7. 11. 87. At that time the acquitted-accused Jagdish Kumar was also sitting at his shop. PW-1 Krishan Lal informed the police immediately and it is the prosecution case that the police rushed to the shop of accused Jagdish Kumar and arrested him and on the pointing out of PW-1 Krishan Kumar appellant-accused was also arrested from the shop of jagdish Kumar. It also appears that appellant-accused informed the police regarding his associate who had also gone to the house of Krishan Lal on day of incident and on the basis of that information the police then arrested accused bharat Bhushan (since deceased on 8. 9. 88 ). During the investigation period the police obtained the medical opinion regarding the nature of injuries sustained by the three victims. As per the medical opinion PW-1 Krishan Lal and his wife radha sustained grievous injuries as a result of throwing of acid on their faces which had resulted into disfigurement of their faces. As far as their daughter is concerned, it appears that she did not sustain serious injury and so she did not get herself re-examined by the doctor in JPN Hospital even though she had been advised on the day of incident itself to come again. Therefore, the police could not get the opinion about the nature of her injury.